Review of River patterns reveal landscape evolution at the edge of subduction, Marlborough Fault System, New Zealand

Abstract

This paper by Duvall et al is interesting, well written, well illustrated and well worth publication in eSurf. 1 Response to eSurf's review guidelines. Does the paper address relevant scientific questions within the scope of ESurf? YES Does the paper present novel concepts, ideas, tools, or data? Data C1 ESurfD Interactive comment Printer-friendly version Discussion paper Are substantial conclusions reached? Partly regional (NZ northern tip), but with possible extension to other orogens. Are the scientific methods and assumptions valid and clearly outlined? Yes, but little criticism of the method (drainage anomalies) is presented. Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and conclusions? Yes for the conclusion regarding the data and interpretations presented. But the general conclusion is also the starting point of the study. Is the description of experiments and calculations sufficiently complete and precise to allow their reproduction by fellow scientists (traceability of results)? Yes Do the authors give proper credit to related work and clearly indicate their own new/original contribution? They do give credit mostly to their own work, but omit a body of literature. Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the paper? Yes Does the abstract provide a concise and complete summary? Yes Is the overall presentation well structured and clear? Yes Is the language fluent and precise? Yes Are mathematical formulae, symbols, abbreviations, and units correctly defined and used? Yes Should any parts of the paper (text, formulae, figures, tables) be clarified, reduced, combined, or eliminated? Not really needed for the paper to reach its conclusions. But perhaps they could extend their review of previous work, their assessment of the limits of their method to 1) pick drainage anomalies and 2) interpret drainage anomalies, and